Is Kamala Harris Another Barack Obama?

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!

AND WILL THE MEDIA QUESTION THE CONFLICTING NARRATIVES?

by Sharon Rondeau

(Feb. 4, 2019) — On January 21, U.S. Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) officially announced her intent to seek the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination in a much-anticipated television appearance following initial reports and speculation that she would run.

As was the case with Barack Hussein Obama, the media has not questioned whether or not Harris is constitutionally eligible to hold the office.

One of the requirements for the president and commander-in-chief is that he or she must be a “natural born Citizen.” Appearing solely in Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, the term was undefined by the Founders, and considerable discussion and controversy have ensued about its meaning over time.

As The Post & Email has reported, several 19th-century references to “natural born” convey the understanding that a person born in the United States to U.S.-citizen parents meets that criterion. In the 1875 case of Minor v. Happersett, the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged that it was “never doubted” that a person born in the country to citizen parents is a “natural-born citizen.” “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents,” the opinion further states. “As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”

A more modern interpretation of “natural born Citizen” is that any birth on United States soil qualifies regardless of the parents’ citizenship at the time. On his 2008 campaign website, Barack Hussein Obama, who claims a 1961 birth in Hawaii to a British-citizen father and U.S.-citizen mother, stated that he is a “natural born citizen” based on the 14th Amendment and his claimed birth in Hawaii, which became a state in 1959.

Reports that Obama was born in Kenya or Indonesia preceded his successful 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns. His claim to a birth in Hawaii and mainstream articles reporting otherwise have never been reconciled.

In 2008, former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson declared Obama “an immigrant” without further explanation. Even under the most liberal of the term’s interpretations, Americans understand that an immigrant to the U.S. cannot serve as president.

In 2010, members of the Kenyan Parliament claimed on the record that Obama was born in their country, not the United States.

In July 2018, Obama himself said that he is the “first sitting American president to come from Kenya.”

A “long-form” birth certificate image posted in April 2011 by the Obama White House said to be a scan of a certified copy of his original birth certificate from Hawaii was found to be fraudulent less than a year later by a criminal investigation which ultimately lasted more than five years. At the end of that time, lead investigator Mike Zullo revealed that two forensics experts agreed with his conclusion that the image is nothing more than a “computer-generated forgery.”

Although claiming to have been born in Hawaii and attended kindergarten there at age 5, Zullo reported last year that Obama “was in Indonesia” at that time in his life.

Last summer, Zullo reported that two U.S. intelligence sources informed him that it has been “an open secret” in Washington, DC that Barack Obama was not born in the United States.

In a July 25, 1787 letter to George Washington, the president of the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention, then-future first U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay wrote, “Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

In Article I, Sections 2 and 3, respectively, the Framers required that U.S. representatives and senators be “a citizen of the United States” with state residency requirements of seven and nine years, respectively. The Framers assigned to Congress the crafting of the nation’s immigration laws with the anticipation that people from other lands would continue to seek entry into the newly-minted country.

With the ninth of the 13 original colonies, then states, approving the new constitution in 1788, it became the basis for a new government, replacing the Articles of Confederation.

The first ten amendments to the Constitution, known as the “Bill of Rights,” were insisted upon by a number of Founding Fathers known as “anti-Federalists” who feared the formation of a strong, centralized government which could overtake the state governments in power and scope and diminish individual liberties. Anti-Federalists such as George Mason agreed to ratify the U.S. Constitution only after the Bill of Rights was conceived as a result of the Massachusetts Compromise.

In 1790, Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 which required two years of residency and “good moral character” for consideration for U.S. citizenship. The law also provided: “And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.”

Five years later, the Naturalization Act of 1795 was passed, repealing the 1790 Act. The two-year residency requirement was replaced by a five-year requirement. Also changed was the provision that foreign-born children of U.S. citizens are “natural born Citizens.”

More expansive than the 1790 Act, the 1795 statute stated, in part:

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.

Current U.S. immigration law requires five years of residency in order for a legal immigrant to apply for citizenship, along with other qualifications. Once granted, U.S. citizenship can be revoked if it is discovered that the naturalized citizen presented false information on his application or if he is found guilty of a felony.

Harris’s father reportedly arrived in Berkeley, CA from Jamaica in 1961, while his future wife, Shyamala Gopalan, had arrived alone from India one year earlier at the age of 19. Reportedly married in 1963, neither had resided in the U.S. for five years when Kamala was born on October 20, 1964.

Many in the media have conflated the 1868 passage of the 14th Amendment with the citizenship qualification for the presidency. Perhaps adding to the confusion is the opinion of some scholars that the amendment overrides the constitution’s “natural born Citizen” requirement. However, the amendment makes no reference to Article II’s presidential requirements; rather, its intent was to recognize that children of freed slaves born in the U.S. were to be considered citizens with all of the rights and responsibilities thereof.

An article published on September 26, 2018 in Jamaica Global Online purports to include a first-person account of Kamala Harris’s life story written by her father, Stanford University economics professor emeritus Donald J. Harris. According to Prof. Harris’s Stanford biography, he has taught at institutions of higher learning in California, Illinois and Wisconsin and earned fellowships to Yale, Cambridge University and the Ford Foundation, among others.

In the article, Prof. Harris describes his youth in Jamaica, his grandmothers and their special place in his life, and the visits he and his daughters made to the island from the United States.

On January 14, the Jamaica Global article was updated with:

Any notion that California Senator Kamala Harris does not know much about, or underplays her Jamaican heritage was dispelled on a recent visit to South Florida, home to over 100,000 Jamaicans. In Miami for a fund-raiser in support of Senator Bill Nelson, she and sister Maya rubbed shoulders and posed for photos with a number of prominent Jamaican Americans, including Mayor of the City of Miramar Wayne Messam and City of Miramar Commissioner Winston Barnes among others.

In a Facebook post after the event, Barnes effused:

‘…..very special lady and as Jamaican as they come…when I asked her where her dad was from, she says St Anns Bay, so I ask, what you know about St Anns Bay..the response?’ “How you mean man? I know there growing up.”

That’s no practiced response!

On Sunday, The (UK) Guardian wrote of Kamala Harris: “She has been described as the female Barack Obama. Like the former US president, Kamala Harris is mixed race (her father from Jamaica, her mother from India), spent part of her childhood abroad (in Canada), became a lawyer, and is now running for the White House after two years as a Democratic senator. Just as Donald Trump is the anti-Obama, many hope that Harris can be the anti-Trump.”

While reportedly making the most of her “Jamaican heritage,” Kamala Harris has also cited her “Asian-American” lineage on her mother’s side. Gopalan was born in Chennai, India to a father who was an Indian diplomat. Kamala reportedly visited her Indian relatives frequently during her childhood. Harris’s maternal aunt, also a doctor, was quoted after Harris’s successful 2016 campaign for the U.S. Senate as having said, “Whatever Kamala is today, it is because of my sister. My sister inculcated South Indian culture and values in her.”

In her book published last month, Kamala Harris says that her life story is an “American” one.

In his essay, Donald Harris wrote that one of his ancestors, an Irishman named Hamilton Brown, foundedBrown’s Town in St. Ann, one of Jamaica’s “parishes.” Brown became a prominent land- and slave-owner in Jamaica, Harris wrote. His claims are corroborated by a number of sources.

Obama denounced “Jim Crow” laws and during his first presidential campaign attempted to portray himself as having a connection to American blacks when claiming that his parents met at the 1965 civil rights protest in Selma, Alabama. “Obama’s Selma speech shamelessly invented his life story, and the media failed to call him on it. It was an early signal that honesty and accuracy were not high on the media’s list of values in that campaign,” Newsbusters summarized Obama’s remarks on March 7, 2007 at the annual commemoration of the event. “This was a pretty bizarre claim for a man who was born in Hawaii and whose parents never had a real marriage, and were literally on different continents by the time of the Selma march of 1965. Selma didn’t bring his parents together; they were officially divorced in 1964, and Obama’s father left Harvard in 1964 and returned to Kenya with another white American woman, named Ruth Baker, and they married there in 1964. His mother married Lolo Soetoro in 1965. The real story in no way resembled Obama’s mythical narrative that Selma inspired two people to fall in love and conceive a future president.”

At her kickoff rally on January 27 in Oakland, CA, as she has in the past, Harris gave the strong impression that she and her sister spent their childhood and formative years there. She omitted the fact that her parents divorced when she was seven years old, after which she and her sister accompanied their mother to a suburb of Montréal, Canada, where Gopalan worked as a cancer researcher.

Harris omits that detail of her life on both her U.S. Senate and presidential websites, although it is well-known to Canadians that she attended school through high-school graduation there. “Growing up in Oakland, Kamala had a stroller-eye view of the Civil Rights movement,” her Senate website reads. “Through the example of courageous leaders like Thurgood Marshall, Constance Baker Motley, and Charles Hamilton Houston, Kamala learned the kind of character it requires to stand up to the powerful, and resolved to spend her life advocating for those who could not defend themselves.”

Her book reportedly relates her years spent in Canada, although its Amazon introduction claims she “grew up in Oakland.”

According to Donald Harris’s account, his second daughter, Maya, was born in Illinois, coinciding with the years in which his biography states he was teaching at the University of Illinois in Champaign-Urbana. Kamala would have been two years old at the time.

Maya Harris, also an attorney, is currently a commentator for MSNBC and previously held a prominent advisory position in Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. She is married to Tony West, a California co-chair of Obama’s 2008 campaign.

According to her Wikipedia entry, Maya Harris “was formerly a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.[3] The organization claims to be “nonpartisan” but says it embraces “bold, progressive ideas, as well as strong leadership and concerted action.”

“Our aim is not just to change the conversation, but to change the country,” its mission statement says.

Also an attorney, West was nominated to the position of Associate Attorney General at the U.S. Justice Department by Barack Obama. He was one of the Justice Department’s litigators in the case of Kerchner v. Obama & Congress, et al, which challenged Obama’s eligibility to hold the office of president based on the claim that he is not a “natural born Citizen.”

According to Wikipedia, Maya Harris is chairing her sister’s presidential campaign.

Maya Harris’s daughter Meena, pictured with Donald Harris in an undated photo in his writeup, is a women’s activist and “community organizer,” according to an article about her reposted from San Francisco.

In an interview with the now-defunct desiclub.com in June 2009, Harris reportedly told interviewer Reshma Dhawan that she “went to public schools in Berkeley and then on to Howard University in Washington, DC” to pursue a law degree. On Sunday, upon discovering that desiclub.com, a site aimed at bringing “South Asians” together, is no longer active, The Post & Email attempted unsuccessfully to reach Ms. Dhawan.

Sharon Rondeau has operated The Post & Email since April 2010, focusing on the Obama birth certificate investigation and other government corruption news. She has reported prolifically on constitutional violations within Tennessee’s prison and judicial systems.

8 Responses to "Is Kamala Harris Another Barack Obama?"

Richard Richard Schaum Tuesday, February 5, 2019 at 5:46 PM

Yes Sharon,
Harris could be another Obama because no one is looking at what allowed Obama to become Senator and then POTUS.
Lets start at the beginning of the founding of America and the 1783 Definitive Treaty of Peace that formally ended the war. Ben Franklin as an English Esquire and Mason agreed to make the King of England the Arch-Treasurer and Prince Elector of the United States of America.
Summary: The King controls the money and banking as Arch-Treasurer. As Prince Elector the King controls the Body Politic. So much for the constitution and Declaration of Independence.
I’m sure you understand the King’s status. Plus, Ben agreed to give the King and his heirs in perpetuity a share of all the Gold, Silver and Copper found in America.

Then the very 1st Act of Congress was to change the wording of the Preamble/Title for purposes of taking the oath of office to “the constitution of the United States”. There is no document with those phrased words in it to be found anywhere in law or at law. Yes, they swear to a document that We the People did not give to them as their employment contract.

The contract that was given to those that are to represent us clearly reads “the Constitution FOR the United States OF AMERICA” This means they are not party to the Constitution We the People gave them.

This is why we have no rights to our Common Law based on God’s Law and Natural Law.

This why we have no clear and free title (Allodial Title) to the land we stand on. We only get to pay rent in the form of taxes and fees. Don’t pay them, and the government seeks another to pay the rent.

This is how we got Obama, it was allowed by the government you didn’t know you had.

We have no standing, we are not the boss.

The Founders classified us as Citizen, Subjects and AKA Debt Slaves for their debt.
Until We the People stand up together and collectivly declare our sovereignity then is shall remain SOS differant day because we consent to be their citizens.

Fix, Repair or Replace the true foundations but don’t tinker. Rip the the bandaid completly off so all see the harm done to us..

Never forget the MAXIMS for determining cause for verdit and remedy.
MAXIMS OF LAW AND EQUITY – THEY ARE THE FOUNDATIONS OF ANY LEGITIMATE AND LAWFUL SOCIETY. Sampling as follows:
From a wrong no contract can arise.
False in one thing, false in all things.
It is a fraud to conceal a fraud.
Fraud and justice never dwell together.
Fraud lies hidden in general expressions.
Fraud is most hateful to law.
In default of the law, the maxim rules.
A mandate of an illegal thing is void.
Remove the foundation, the work falls.
When the foundation fails, all fails.

OPOVV Tuesday, February 5, 2019 at 5:05 PM

What can one possibly say? The Federal Election Commission gave Obama an FEC number, and without it a candidate cannot be on the ballot, at least on paper – the Constitution – but in the real world, the world of money resulting in bribes and kickbacks, anything is possible, as we all well know.
So what can we expect?
I’m afraid the answer is, simply: not much.
When I ran for president in 2012, I pleaded with the RNC to get in on the debates where I could bring up the question of Obama’s eligibility.
I was never invited yet never wondered why.
And then I spent the next 4 years fighting Obama’s eligibility in Federal Courts across the land, represented by Orly Taitz, Esq., only to be told time after time that, even though I was a legitimate candidate, I had “no standing”. How the judges figured that was either by being paid off or ignorance, but even if they did take the bribe it was still done in ignorance, wasn’t it?
The problem, the main-number-one-problem in our country today, are our rotten judges.

Here is the link to a copy of my petition to the U.S. Supreme Court for the Kerchner et al vs Obama & Congress et al lawsuit, which the Supreme Court refused to here. See: https://www.scribd.com/document/38506403/Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari-filed-with-the-U-S-Supreme-Court-for-Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress The original district court filing can be found at this link: https://www.scribd.com/document/61221761/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-00-Table-of-Contents-for-2nd-Amended-Complaint The lower, district court turned away the case on technical grounds such as standing and political question and at the 3rd court of appeal level did so on the stated term that it was frivolous to appeal the district court decision on the argument that it was the same argument as Berg vs Obama filed in the same district, which is was not. The 3rd circuit court of appeals even threatened to sanction our attorney, Mario Apuzzo, by threatening him with sanctions to intimidate him. But he fought back and the 3rd circuit backed off on the threatened sanction action. They knew they were wrong and did not want further publicity to the case as a sanctions hearing would have had to be held in public per the regs. The Kerchner case was very different in the charge counts and the timing/ripeness than the Berg case. The district court in Berg vs Obama said the argument in the summer of 2008 wasn’t ripe yet because Obama was as of the filing date of that case, either not even nominated by the convention yet, and/or was not elected yet. The Kerchner et al case was filed after Obama had won the national election, had won the electoral college vote, and was ratified/confirmed by Congress … but before he was sworn in. So Kerchner et al v Obama et al was ripe and thus not the same case as Berg v Obama. But the court system at the lower levels pulled a Catch 22 type of defense to not hear any cases, or technical standing type arguments. And the U.S. Supreme Court simply decided to duck/avoid the issue … as Justice Thomas so stated in a public hearing before a committee of Congress. The founders and framers and Chief Justice Marshall’s court are likely rolling over in their graves by the lack of courage in taking on a case to address the question of the meaning of the “natural born Citizen” clause, a national security clause, in our U.S. Constitution, in a case directly addressing Presidential Eligibility and that term. They should have taken the case and instead they avoided it and several others. The court did not do its job when asked to interpret an important national security term in Article II Section 1 Clause 5. History will record their cowardice and how they disgraced their oath of office to support and defend the Constitution.

The original intent of Art. II, § I, Cl. 5. was to ensure exclusive allegiance to the ideals reflected in l’Esprit de la Révolution, as articulated by the Declaration of Independence, and codified by the U.S. Constitution. That intent has never been changed or amended. In fact, due to the vast increase in speed and destructive firepower modern weapons now have over their 18th Century counterparts, it remains more relevant today than it has ever been since 1787.

At that time, only U.S. husbands could pass their citizenship on to their heirs (in most cases), ensuring exclusive allegiance at birth. This was changed in the early part of the 20th Century with the passage of the Cable Act, recognizing the nationality of the wife, which is the root cause of all the confusion of today, as well as its root solution, i.e., if both parents are U.S. citizens at the time of birth of their offspring, exclusive allegiance to support and abide by the U.S. Constitution is assured.

If you want a really interesting question on this subject, check out Hawaii’s Rep. Tulsi Gabbard pedigree.

IMO the media will avoid any discussion of presidential eligibility, not just the left, but people like Hannity and Mark Levin who supported the clearly ineligible Ted Cruz in 2016. Obama’s successful usurpation I fear has put the final nail in Constitutional eligibility as intended by the framers of the Constitution. This means repeating, “Obama”, with other candidates who are ineligible may be routine, partly because getting another ineligible candidate elected as the putative president would close the book on anything ever being done about The Obama Fraud and the destruction it brought to our nation, both now and into the future……………

Nikita's_UN_Shoe Tuesday, February 5, 2019 at 10:04 AM

Excellent article with superb references, worthy of forwarding to my do-nothing Republican U.S. Representative in Illinois’ 13th District and my two U.S. Senators – Dick Duckworth and Tammy Durbin (L).